EFFECT ON IMPROVEMENT G.R. No. L-11284 October 13, 1917 SIMEON BLAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

VICENTE DE LA CRUZ and MARIANO MELENDRES, as sheriff of Rizal, defendants-appellees. “Buildings” Facts: 1. March 20, 1911: an action was commenced in the Court of Land Registration by the defendant Vicente de la Cruz for the registration under the torrens system of several pieces or parcels of land. 2. June 14, 1912: Simeon Blas presented his opposition, alleging that he was the owner of a portion of the lands described in the petition of the plaintiff. 3. Hearing was had in the Court of Land registration; that portion of the land claimed by Simeon Blas was excluded from the lands included in the petition of the plaintiff Vicente de la Cruz; 4. March 16, 1915: Vicente de la Cruz appealed to the Supreme Court: LC’s decision was modified and that portion which was claimed by Simeon Blas was ordered to be registered in the name of Vicente de la Cruz 5. A final judgment was rendered in the cause and the case was returned to the lower court upon the 19 day of April, 1915; that the land involved in the present action is the same land which was brought into question in the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to. 6. The purpose of the present action was to obtain an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from destroying certain buildings and improvements upon a certain piece or parcel of land particular described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The present action had it original in the following facts: Issue: WON the decree ordering the registration of land under the Torrens system include the buildings and improvements thereon when they have not been expressly excluded in said decree? Held: YES. 1. The general purpose of the Torrens system is to forever foreclose litigation concerning the title to land. Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated by the law. The decree of registration shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, unless fraud is proved within a period of one year after said decree is rendered (section 38 of Act No. 496). 2. Section 39 of said Act (No. 496), makes certain exceptions to the rule just stated. Section 39, as amended, provides that, "every applicant receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration . . . shall hold the same free of all incumbrance except those noted on said certificate, and any of the following incumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:

First. Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or Constitution of the United States or of the Philippines Islands which the statutes of the Philippine Islands can not require to appear of record in the registry. Second. Taxes within two years after the same have become due and payable. Third. Any public highway, way, private way established by law, or any Government irrigation canal or lateral therefor, where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway, way, or irrigation canal or lateral thereof, have been determined. But if there are easements or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which for any reason have failed to be registered, such easements or rights shall remain so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure, and shall be held to pass with the land until cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate, or in any other manner. 3. Buildings and improvements upon the land are not included in that exception, and that, unless the objector, during the pendency of the litigation for the registration of land makes claims to improvements of the character of those in the present action, and does have them excluded from the decree of registration, they will be included as a part and parcel and appurtenances to the land; and that the objector will not be permitted, in a separate action subsequently brought, to question the right of such improvements. 4. If he may, then the certificate of registration does not guarantee to the owner of the land the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of his title which the Torrens system was adopted to secure. 5. Plaintiff herein did not, during the pendency of the litigation for the registration of the lands in question, have excluded therefrom and have noted upon the certificate of title his alleged rights and interests in the improvements mentioned herein and noted upon the certificate of title issued 6. He thereby lost his right to such improvements; and therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

000.000 but failed to pay the subsequent interest from April 1988 to October 1989 amounting to P114.000 through the broker. The rule on prior registration is subject only to one exception. Same date: the Macadangdang spouses made a downpayment of P5. 3. Ramon Martinez and Gloria Martinez are hereby ordered to deliver to the plaintiffs the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. lien attachment. 2005 SPOUSES BIENVENIDO R.000. 1986: Macadangdang spouses offered to buy the property from Emma Omalin (Parkhomes Subd. petitioners vs. However. Ordering defendants-appellants to deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. Hence. if such prior transfer was unrecorded. September 1987 to March 9. Sections 51 and 52 of PD 1529. The proper annotation was made at the back of the title. Declaring defendants-appellants Ramon and Gloria Martinez as mortgagees in good faith. 6. Jan. it was the registered mortgage to the spouses Martinez that was valid and effective. – Every conveyance. The act of registration operates to convey and affect the registered land so that a bonafide purchaser of such land acquires good title as against a prior transferee. filing or entering. if registered. January 31. offered to mortgage the subject property to the Martinez spouses for P200. Nino Realty Services. MARTINEZ. Hence. 18. the appellate court declared the Martinez spouses as mortgagees in good faith and innocent mortgagees for value. Sto. judgment. MACADANGDANG and VIRGINIA C. MACADANGDANG. 7. the parties to the prior sale. Considering that the prior sale of the subject property to the Macadangdang spouses was not registered. 52. Atty. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned. Omalin to pay plaintiffs-appellees the amount of P30. the latter did not pay the P110. 146553. SPOUSES RAMON MARTINEZ and GLORIA F. the parties agreed that the balance of P110. we rule that the sale in favor of plaintiffs-appellee is likewise valid. 1987.000.000. The petition lacks merit.000 balance because Omalin failed to deliver the TCT. No.000 was to be paid upon delivery of the TCT.a. except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land. annulment of contract and damages against the spouses Martinez and Omalin. The Macadangdang spouses filed a criminal case for estafa against Omalin and a combined action for specific performance. 5. this petition. but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make Registration. a certain Atty. mortgage. 3. For sure.[9] 6.000 and on October 1. The Martinez spouses claimed they had never met the Macadangdang spouses and were unaware that Omalin had already sold the property to them. It turned out that the property was mortgaged to private respondent spouses Ramon and Gloria Martinez (Martinez spouses). 4. 2. another P30. 146553 and a fire insurance policy covering said property. 8. April 22. a broker.000 as moral damages and P20. 4. lease. 158682. 2. Inc. Muntinlupa. for that matter. It is clear from the foregoing that the registration of the deed is the effectual act which binds the land insofar as third persons are concerned. instrument or entry affecting registered land shall. Between two transactions concerning the same parcel of land. January 29. Sec.OTHER IMPORTANT VOLUNTARY DEALINGS MORTGAGE G. 10: Makati RTC: rendered a decision in favor of the Macadangdang spouses: Defendants Emma A. But no deed. . 51. YES. his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. Constructive notice upon registration. Omalin. 4. lease or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. 2. subject to the right of defendants-appellants to foreclose the property for failure of defendant Omalin to pay her indebtedness. she has the right to sell it. Ordering defendant Emma A. 1988. and duly recorded it at the Registry of Deeds of Makati.000 on installment basis. 11. On January 3. and in all cases under this Decree. mortgage. lease or other voluntary instrument. 1. subject to the existing encumbrance and the right of defendants-appellants to foreclose the property should defendant Omalin fail to pay her obligation. He may use such forms of deeds. 9. December 20. 1988: Omalin paid the monthly interest of P6. 1987. 1987. free from the encumbrance under Entry No. they paid another P175. order. Prior registration of a lien creates a preference as the act of registration is the operative act that conveys and affects the land. After the Macadangdangs had paid a total of P270. CA: modified the decision of the Makati RTC: Considering that defendant Omalin remains to be the owner of the property despite the existence of a valid mortgage. mortgages. Omalin executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Macadangdang spouses. Omalin executed a deed of sale with mortgage dated January 5. lease. are pertinent: Sec. 146553 to plaintiffs-appellees. that is.R. when a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquires a right to the same land. respondents. they paid P60. even on the Macadangdang spouses. mortgage. filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies. 1987: Macadangdang spouses took possession of the house and lot 5. be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering. Santos was in possession of a ―clean‖ TCT No.000. Tunasan. it was binding on Omalin and. the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. March 5. Issue: WON the Martinez spouse has the right to foreclose the property should Omalin fail to pay her obligation? Held. Paterno Santos.000. Declaring the deed of sale with mortgage in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Bienvenido and Virginia Macadangdang as valid and ordering them to pay defendant Omalin the balance of the price in the sum of P110. 30110 of the Register of Deeds of Makati. the registered transaction prevails over the earlier unregistered right. 3. charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. 1987. “Sold and Mortgaged” Facts: 1. Hence.000 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. – An owner of registered land may convey.000. otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. 1987. upon plaintiffs’ payment of the balance of P100.. The deed provided for the payment of the balance of P200. The spouses Martinez accepted the mortgage with interest at 36% p. MM – TCT 146553) for P380. 1.000 in three installments. Thereafter.

Consequently. not as owners but only as mortgagees. On this note. as declared by the Court of Appeals. for every one dealing with registered property will have to inquire at every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. . may enforce their rights against the property by foreclosing on the mortgage. 32018 is AFFIRMED. being innocent registered mortgagees for value. Otherwise. fails to pay the mortgage obligation or. as mortgagor. 9. Where innocent third persons rely on the lack of defect of a certificate of title and acquire rights over the property. CV No. they are entitled to be paid the amounts due them under the real estate mortgage registered in their favor. 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.7. for that matter. the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the October 25. WHEREFORE. the Martinez spouses acquired a superior right over the property. regardless of who its owner may be. the latter. public confidence in the certificate of title and ultimately. the Court cannot disregard such rights. should any party. in the entire Torrens system will be impaired. In the event Omalin. who may have an interest in the mortgaged property like the petitioners herein fail to redeem it from the mortgagees. The registered mortgage contract of the Martinez spouses has given them the superior right.R. 8. considering that the registered mortgage attaches to the property.

2.R. defendant in Civil Case No. No. issued an order dismissing appellants' complaint saying that the property is that of the defendant’s as declared final and executor in SP-488." 5. 1974. plaintiffs (appellants) have no cause of action. the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall have been entered. 6. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and necessity. by successive alienation's pending the litigation. they were constrained to institute the present action. its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging. . Civil Case No. the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. L-45252 January 31. a warning to the whole world that one who buys the property so annotated does so at his own risk. Action to quiet title filed by appellants Timoteo Laroza and Conchita Uri in the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City versus appellee Donaldo Guia over a parcel of land in San Pablo with coconuts. Notwithstanding. CA: affirmed the LC’s decision. "that the land subject matter of the complaint has already been the subject of a final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. Lower Court. Francisco Guia. Plaintiffs are the supposed purchasers of the property from Francisco Guia. 4. 2. defendant in SP-488. in their complaint. etc. Appellants opposed the motion to dismiss maintaining that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action and prayed that the motion to dismiss be denied. there is no res judicata because there is no Identity of causes of action since the case at bar is an action to quiet title. whereas. SP 488) had already been registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City affecting the property. plaintiffs-appellants. among others. on October 30.. ACCORDINGLY. Records show that long before appellants had acquired subject property. 7. 3. is adverse to their predecessor-in-interest. Having purchased the property with notice of lis pendens. a notice of lis pendens (Civil Case No. after they had seen the documents of ownership of said Francisco Guia 3. this petition. vs. Lis pendens is a notice of pending litigation.LIS PENDENS Nature Grounds Sec 76 PD 1529. SP-488. appellants bought the land from Francisco Guia. or if there be any. Furtheremore. 4. DONALDO GUIA. “Notice of Lis Pendens is a notice to the world” Facts: 1. SP-488 is one of filiation and partition. Hence. Rules 13-14 ROC G. There is no merit in this appeal. 1. Appellants. 1985 TIMOTEO LAROZA and CONCHITA URI. There is no room for doubt or for controversy that all the requisite elements of res judicata or bar by prior judgment are present here. for lack of merit. Held: NO. otherwise. defendantappellee. 1966. alleged that they bought the above-described property in good faith and for valuable considerations from Francisco Guia on June 30. Issue: WON the plaintiff-appellants (Laroza) are entitled to the said property. Appellants went to the then Court of Appeals alleging that the lower court erred (1) in holding that the instant case is already barred by a previous judgment 8. hence. 1973. SP 488. That they were in continuous possession of the said property from the time they acquired the same from Francisco Guia until appellee intruded upon the said peaceful possession by attempting to survey the above-described property and to partition the same by virtue of a decision of this Honorable Court dated December 29. that the attempt of herein defendant to survey and partition the above-described property beclouds the title of herein plaintiffs for which reason. the same is barred by a prior judgment. appellants took the risk of losing it in case the decision in the said civil case.

On the other hand.00). 1974. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MARIA MARRON.D. if he cancels any notice of lis pendens in violation of his duty. Case No. 126056). 97479 had not yet become final and executory considering that it was still the subject of a petition for relief from judgment. 7680 captioned "Maria Marron v. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads: WHEREFORE. A writ of execution was issued by the court on July 12. No. the private respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of T. 1976. 97479 favoring the plaintiff and against the defendants: Bazars as vendors to execute in favor of Marron a Deed of Absolute Sale in a public instrument over the residential lot covered by TCT No. 1977. 1974 or a little over four months before the filing of Civil Case No. T. There is a clear showing that although the late Maria Marasigan acquired the property in question from the Bazaars pursuant to a deed of absolute sale on December 18.T. 97479 entitled "Maria Marron v. 100612 was cancelled and a new title was issued in Maria Marasigan's name. the Deputy Clerk of Court was advised to secure a court order in order that the new title issued in the name of herein petitioner Maria Marasigan could be cancelled. January 27. the Bazaars filed a petition for relief from the judgment dated February 24. if registered. There is no question that when the late Maria Marasigan was issued her transfer certificate of title to the subject property (T. 100612 4. et al. Teofilo. and Francisco. 1978. refused to surrender their title to the property in question and to execute the required deed of sale in Marron's favor. However. 1984: CA ruled that Marron is entitled to the property under litigation by virtue of the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of Maria Marasigan's title. 1980. It appears that on December 18. 8. affecting registered land shall. the lower court finally ordered the Clerk of Court to execute the deed of sale in behalf of the erring spouses. On July 30.C. 1529) provides: Sec. 1976. Felicisimo Bazar and Fe S. Marron instituted L. 126056 naming Maria Marasigan as the new owner of Lot 2-A. 52. Said case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice on the part of the petitioner to institute the appropriate civil action before the proper court… 11. Reyes. 9. Civil Case No. The appellate court further ruled that the decision in Civil Case No.R. Section 51 of Act 496. On September 6. filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies. the notice of lis pendens caused to be annotated by Marron on the Bazar's title was carried over on the said new title. be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering. the Registrar of Deeds of Manila then carried over to the new title the notice of lis pendens which the private respondent had caused to be annotated at the back of the Bazar's title. The above judgment became final and executory so Maria Marron filed a motion for execution which was granted. all surnamed Marasigan.C. filing or entering. 97479. We find no merit in the present petition. 100612 in favor of Maria Marron. On November 29. on February 24. respondents.G. 2. Constructive notice upon registration. petitioners. 7. however. 1976 in Civil Case No. 1976.R. 1979 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons. Maximina. April 24. he may be held civilly and even criminally liable for any prejudice caused to innocent third persons (The Director of Lands. When the Register of Deeds of Manila issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 97479 was still pending.000.. vs. the parties submitted said case for decision. August 7. 97479 had become final and executory because the petition for relief from judgment of the spouses Bazar was filed out of time. this petition. 100612 and to deliver to plaintiff sufficient copies of such deed of sale. 68 SCRA 177). 1975. the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and another one entered — (a) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel T. In case of subsequent sales or transfers. Issue: WON the Heirs of Marasigans are the legal owners of the land in question. the Registrar of Deeds is duty bound to carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be issueds. as amended by Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (P. No. Branch XIII in Civil Case No. Bazaar" was filed before the then Court of First Instance of Manila.C. Hence. While their petition was still pending. No. 12. No. 126378 to have Marasigan's TCT 126056 cancelled conformably to the procedure outlined in the decision of the above land registration court. February 18. 3. The action sought to compel defendants Bazar to execute a registrable Deed of Absolute Sale of their lot covered by T. Maria Marasigan" which prayed for a court order requiring the Register of Deeds of Manila to register the deed of sale executed by the Deputy Clerk of Court in behalf of the Bazaars. Otherwise. 1977 when it was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Manila.T.T. No. 1987 HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN. judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. Consequently. 126056 in the name of Maria Marasigan and issue another in the name of Maria Marron by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch XIII. A notice of lis pendens means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his own risk (Rehabilitation . while Civil Case No. Marron filed another case docketed as Civil Case No. 1979.T.C. 1979. L-69303 July 23. No. May 26. 10. it was only on July 5. Bazar in favor of Maria Marasigan for and in consideration of the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15. the transaction became effective as against third persons only on July 5. No. a deed of absolute sale T. 2. v. When the said deed was presented to the Register of Deeds of Manila for registration. 13. — Every conveyance . Held: NO.C. “Late Registration” Facts: 1. Isabel.C. 1. 100612 was executed by Fe S. together with the Owner's copy of said Transfer Certificate of Title No. they moved to set aside the said judgment on June 22.. 1977 that said deed was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Manila. 6. namely. 100612. 5.T. It is the act of registration which creates constructive notice to the whole world. 1982. the CFI of Manila dismissed Marron's complaint for being premature since the decision rendered by the CFI. 3. 97479.T.C. February 24. The spouses Bazar. Anicia.

97479 became final and executory.Finance Corporation v. On June 11. The appellate court's decision is AFFIRMED. Section 3 of said Rules provides.. The 60-day period must be reckoned from May 12. Time for filing petition. 1976 in Civil Case No.. . Moreover. that: Sec. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered or such proceeding was taken. Morales. There may have been some errors in the computations but the petition itself was out of time. 1976 when the Bazaars were served with a copy of the assailed decision. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 1976. filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. we agree with the finding of the appellate court that the petition for relief from judgment by the Bazaars dated May 26. 1977 was filed beyond the two periods provided in Section 3 Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court. 1976. in part. 101 Phil. — A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified. 6. WHEREFORE. The late Marasigan's transferors did not interpose any appeal from the adverse judgment dated February 24. the Bazaars no longer had the right to alienate the property subject of the litigation.. 1976 decision in Civil Case No. 4. At this point after the finality of the said decision. the 60-day period expired on July 11. It was only after 379 days or more than 12 months after they learned of the judgment that the Bazaars filed their petition for relief from said judgment. 5. It was also a clear notice to Maria Marasigan that there was a court case affecting her rights to the property she had purchased. . 97479. order or other proceeding to be set aside. The 30-day period under the old rule (Rule 41. section 3 of the Revised Rules of court) within which the Bazaars may have taken an appeal started to run from May 12.. 3. 171). Therefore. in view of all the foregoing. Rule 38. . Any transaction effective during the period of litigation is subject to the risks implicit in the notice of lis pendens and to the eventual outcome of the litigation. the February 24. 1976 when they were served with a copy of the said decision.

Bautista. BAUTISTA and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY. were the owners of two parcels of land described in TCT No. respectively. “Hearing Before Cancellation of Lis Pendens” Facts: 1.R. No.. HON.05 to the Manila Bank as payment of the redemption price of the two parcels of land. the Register of Deeds of Iligan City cancelled the adverse claim and notice of lis pendens. failed to pay the assumed obligation and as a result. by virtue of such order. the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens without notice to the party who caused its annotation. Thus. 296 was likewise delivered to her by the Manila Bank. 296 for the amount of P28. Bautista. 9 And in the case of Natano vs. CFI: After trial. 24992) for Specific Performance with Damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Leonora Punongbayan caused the annotation of an adverse claim and notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. ANGEL L. Peter's College. 2. Subsequently. 19417 and filed before the lower court a motion to set aside the order of the respondent judge directing the issuance of a certificate of final conveyance (sale). Inc. et al. 4. which the trial court granted. Second. L-58193 August 30. Within the one year redemption period.316. Hence. The temporary restraining order issued by the court is hereby made permanent. Bautista. 1. The Register of Deeds of Iligan City is hereby ordered to reannotate the notice of lis pendens on TCT No. petitioner.327.000. PUNONGBAYAN. GREGORIO G. The Manila Bank likewise returned to Angel Bautista the amount of P28. 3. after the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the office of the Register of Deeds. St. Branch XXI. defendants should thereafter sell the land to a purchaser in good faith and for value ? Third. was properly and legally ordered cancelled. alleging that the redemption referred to his property only as the other property with TCT No. 19417 was issued in the name of Angel L. 7546. 296 had been redeemed by Leonora Punongbayan. 434. Within almost the same period.09 and a certificate of redemption was issued in her favor and the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. Angel L. The Manila Bank denied the request. respondents. WHEREFORE.58. The Manila Bank issued a certificate of redemption in favor of Angel Bautista with respect to the land with TCT No. 296 and TCT No. Branch XXI. 5. Peter's College. With costs against the private respondent Angel L. 9. That order in effect had placed plaintiffs at a disadvantage. 10937 (formerly TCT No. 1984 LEONORA A. Esteban et al.CANCELLATION G. the Court ruled: A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title where there was no unnecessary delay attributable to plaintiff and his counsel in the resolution of the main case for annulment of said certificate. Bautista filed an ex-parte petition before the lower court for the issuance of a certificate of final conveyance (sale) over the two properties. 7546 to Angel Bautista. By virtue of such certificate of final conveyance. CA: The Manila Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. which the latter refused to accept and instead made several demands from the Manila Bank to issue a certificate of redemption in his favor with respect to the two parcels of land. They mortgaged the two properties to the Manila Banking Corporation (Manila Bank. Angel L. Inc. Pending appeal. The trial court issued an order granting the motion without giving Leonora Punongbayan a chance to be heard. it was granted ex-parte. this petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction with prayer for a restraining order to annul and set aside the order of respondent judge with respect to the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens to reannotate the notice of lis pendens Issue: WON the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT No. PINEDA. vs. . TCT No. the order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens should be set aside: First. Leonora Punongbayan claims that the cancellation was illegal since no notice was sent to her concerning the hearing of the motion for cancellation of said annotation and was consequently denied the right to be heard. the latter to assume the obligation of paying the outstanding balance of the mortgage to the Manila Bank. Thus a complaint was filed by Angel Bautista against the Manila Bank (Civil Case No. sold the property with TCT No.. 8. the order dismissing the complaint had not yet become final. 434. Held: NO The petitioner. the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Angel L. Bautista thereafter filed an ex-parte manifestation and motion praying for the cancellation of Entry No. What if. It opened the floodgate to the commission of a fraud. (last paragraph of Section 24. 11. Angel Bautista. the writ prayed for is hereby GRANTED and the questioned order directing cancellation of the notice of lis pendens is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Leonora Punongbayan then filed a motion to set aside such order. which the trial court denied. There is no showing that the notice of lis pendens "is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. especially when such cancellation was ordered without notice to plaintiff's counsel. Upon knowing this. or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded. the Court ruled For three reasons. 296 was cancelled and a new TCT No. 10. Ortiz.00. for short) to guarantee a loan of P550. however.467. Leonora Punongbayan redeemed the property with TCT No. under Entry No. Rule 14 of Rules of Court) In the case of Sarmiento vs.327. The rule for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens provides that there should be notice to the party who caused it to be recorded so that he may be given a chance to be heard and show to the court that the notice is not for the purpose of molesting the adverse party and that it is necessary to protect his right. the properties were extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at public auction to the Manila Bank as the highest bidder for the price of P131." 10 In view of the foregoing. 7. 6. 7546) only. which the trial court denied. Leonora Punongbayan and St. Angel Bautista paid the amount of P148. 19417. T-19417.09. Plaintiffs were thus deprived of their right to be heard on notice. as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

on May 21. with the buildings thereon. in connection with the action brought by him. when Doctor Victoriano and three of his assistants testified. Issue: WON the judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. one of which was a deed of sale to Gonzalez of the petitioner's remaining interest in the aforesaid property in consideration of the payment of P2. Ltd. 3. but the then acting judge. Pacifico Victoriano. the remaining part of purchase money. 4. In the meantime. So ordered. the defendant Gonzalez. the petitioner brought an action against Gonzalez and the latter's attorney. he must within five days from notice hereof give bond in the amount of five thousand pesos to answer for any damages that may be occasioned the defendant by such annotation. 1928. The cases were assigned for hearing several times. where it eventually was consolidated with the action for the annulment of the aforesaid documents. L-33770 August 8. Municipal court refused to take jurisdiction of the unlawful detainer suit and certified it to the Court of First Instance. the petitioner organized a school named "Colegio Liceo de Manila" of which he was the director. Judge Rovira: this court issued an order to the plaintiff advising him that if he desired to have the lis pendens annotation continued. and as we cannot hold that the court below exceeded such jurisdiction. 12. 10. 1928. Two days later. 2. except in cases expressly provided for by statute. and it has been held that a court has the inherent power in the absence of statute to cancel a lis pendens in a proper case. transfer certificate of title to the property was issued in favor of Gonzalez. leaving it without effect. 13.G. Apparently becoming impatient. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA and PEDRO MA. FRANCISCO J.. petitioner.000 in actual cash and assumed the payment of the mortgages. and on May 2.426. on the ground that he. and it being a first mortgage. The petitioner failed to pay the rent. 3. The respondent Gonzalez also seems to have had an interest in the school and held one of the mortgages which was given as security for the sum of P47. 1928. filed a motion in the Court of First Instance praying that the plaintiff. had filed a notice of lis pendens with the register of deeds of Manila. JOSE MARTINEZ DE SAN AGUSTIN. vs. When we further take into consideration that the rent stipulated in the lease was P700 per month and that the petitioner therefore must have owed Gonzalez over P17. however. 8. 1929. from one Narciso Javier for the sum of P80. the petitioner was led to execute said documents by reason of insidious and fraudulent machinations of the defendants and by their threats. The property was incumbered with two mortgages to the total amount of P72. A motion for reconsideration was presented by Doctor Victorano's counsel. the register of deeds shall proceed to cancel the lis pendens annotation. 5. SISON. May 29. but were continued at the instance of counsel for the herein petitioner. the stipulated rent being P700 per month. Pedro Ma. an action of unlawful detainer was brought against him by Gonzalez in the municipal court of the City of Manila.500. Judges of First Instance. and the property referred to was used for the purposes of the school. But there may be exceptions. 1930 PACIFICO VICTORIANO. we cannot say that the court below erred in requiring him to give bond in the modest sum of P5. which prevented Gonzalez from disposing of the property in question. 1922: Victoriano purchased a lot. Ordinarily a notice of pendency which has been filed in a proper case cannot be cancelled. provided. including overdue interest. for the annulment of the documents executed on May 3.000 in overdue rent. Sison. be ordered to give a bond in the sum of P10.000. and the petitioner paid only P8. and no evidence was taken until February 27 of the present year. the petition is denied with the costs against the petitioner. The other document was a lease of the property executed by Gonzalez in favor of the petitioner.R. 5. May 3. 11. Jose Martinez de San Agustin. Held: NO 1. so far. and in the beginning of May. The petitioner did not bring his action until over a year after the sale to Gonzalez. “Bond for Lis Pendens” Facts: 1. 4. Gonzalez threatened to foreclose the mortgages and thus compelled the petitioner to make a settlement so as to prevent the transfer of the school to other quarters. The cases were again continued. and the evidence he has presented up to the present time does not bear out the main allegations of the complaint. the amount due Gonzalez on the mortgages was P78. No. 7. The accounts then showed that. He must also be held responsible for most of the continuances of the trial of the two cases before the Court of First Instance. two documents were executed. . and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA. GONZALEZ. Writs of prohibition go to the jurisdiction.000. it seems that it eventually became necessary for Gonzalez to settle the matter with the insurance company in order to protect the second mortgage held by him. 2. 9. the petitioner maintaining that his notice of lis pendens was duly filed in accordance with the provisions of section 79 of the Land Registration Act and that under our laws. that should he FAIL to do so. 14. with a view to hold possession of the property in question as long as possible without paying rent. no further evidence appears to have been presented. The other mortgage was held by the Shanghai Life Insurance Company.000. while the action is pending and undetermined. denied the motion. The petitioner seems to have been unable to pay the interest on the mortgages.000 to respond for the damages resulting from the fact that said plaintiff. The present petition for a writ of prohibition was thereupon brought before this court.61 6. Five days later. respondents. the courts had no power to order the cancellation of the notice before a final judgment of the case to which it related had been rendered.000 and in ordering the cancellation of the list pendens in the event that the petitioner failed to present the bond. and.

plaintiffs-appellants. to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. No. CARMEN JULIANA GARRICHO and FRANCISO AGUADO. 3. operated as a cancellation of the notation of the pendency thereof. which may be noted in the registry of deeds. 1928: plaintiffs-appellants Clemente A.. 9303 of the registry of deeds of Nueva Ecija and the issuance of another in lieu thereof in the name of the said plaintiffs-appellants. 9303. 1929. 5073 was called for hearing. 5.denied September 11. 4. “Non-appearance!” Facts: 1. and therefore. such dismissal does not therefore give to the subject matter so dismissed. constituted two mortgages on the parcel of land described in the aforementioned certificate of title No. 5073 on the back of the certificate of title No. of the Code of Civil Procedure. July 27. and Feliciana Mariano Sarangaya). 1929. 000 (Exhibit B) and the second for P6. this court is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That the order dismissing a civil case. case 2. 9303. which eliminated it from the court’s docket. was noted on the back of said certificate of title No. a notice of lis pendens was filed in the office of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija.vs. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to appear and their counsel was not ready for trial. in which case the said dismissal shall not be a bar to another action for the same cause. m. dismissed the case. L-39433 CLEMENTE A. 5073. defendants. with costs against the appellants. Issue: Whether or not the notation of the order of dismissal of civil case No. Upon failure to resort to either remedy. 2. . 9303 is legal and valid and operated as a cancellation of the notation of the notice of lis pendens. At any rate. in accordance with the provisions of section 122 of the same Code.G. LAZARO. ET AL. So ordered. operates as a cancellation of the notation of lis pendens. 1929: Feliciana Mariano. in favor of the herein defendants-appellees Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado: the first mortgage for the sum of P10. September 23. 1928. July 30. which was done on June 10.. not finding any error in the appealed judgment. due to the delay in the filing of the new complaint. 1929: the plaintiffs filed a motion for reinstatement -. Wherefore. it is hereby affirmed in toto. ET AL. Held: 1. at 11:03 a. 5073.. The notation of the order of dismissal issued in civil case No. upon petition of the defendant’s counsel. the herein plaintiffs-appellants lost the benefit of the lis pendens In view of the foregoing. 2. November 26. the dismissal having taken place on July 2. against Feliciana Mariano (alias Feliciana Mariano Vda. upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear. and the defendant appears and asks for the dismissal. FELICIANA MARIANO. 5. Section 127. July 2. Lazaro and Maria Simon filed a complaint. By provision of law. is not final and does not constitute res judicata. there will be no pending case before the court. the character of res judicata and consequently the order of dismissal does not finally determine the controversy and is not appealable. and (2) that the dismissal of a civil case upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear.500 (Exhibit C). November 26. provides that the court may dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial. appellees. The plaintiff has no other remedy but to ask for the reinstatement of the case or to file another complaint upon the same cause. 1929: the order of dismissal dated July 2. not appealable. which notice was noted on the back of said certificate of title No. 1929: the aforementioned civil case No. the defendant in the aforesaid civil case No. 4. 1930. 9303. claiming that the contract of sale Exhibit A be declared rescinded and that an order be issued directing the cancellation of certificate of title No. de Sarangaya. 3.R. the court.

86. and that the vendee was an innocent purchaser. Lacson free from the annotation of the notice of lis pendens. The orders appealed from are reversed. . April 10 1957: Capitol Subdivision. 21 of subdivision plan No. Occidental Negros. Montelibano and Concepcion Montelibano Hojilla brought an action against Alfredo Montelibano in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros civil case No. which mortgaged was duly noted at the back of TCT No. Act No. 9. The lots continue or remain the property of the registered owners. share and share alike. 4272) and. and issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title in favor of Corazon J. the deed of sale in favor of Marcelino Lalantakan executed by the vendors on 29 June 1936 was not registered at all. 5979 and 5986 were registered in the name of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro Montelibano and Alejandro M. In the second case. 5. not having been registered. Lacson. acting as land registration court. Montelibano and Concepcion Montelibano Hojilla filed a motion for reconsideration. 12 March 1957: Alfredo L. And when the latter are sued by a party concerning or involving or affecting the lots thus sold by the registered owners and the suing party causes a notice of lis pendens to be noted on the back of the certificates of title to the lots sold. 3. The parcels of land in question covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. payable by installment. “Late Registration” Facts: These are appeals from two orders entered by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. August 1947. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO and CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO HOJILLA. . The deed of sale in favor of Corazon J. pursuant to the provisions of section 79. Montelibano. Although an unrecorded sale of a parcel of land registered under the Torrens System is binding upon the parties. Lacson.. yet "The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land . 24 September 1954: vendee paid in full the agreed price of the parcel of land and on the same date the vendors executed the deed of sale in her favor 4. 2. Same facts… mortgage… brought a case against Alfredo… Issue: WON Held: 1. and MONTELIBANO SUBDIVISIONS. 28 of the same subdivision plan. payable by installment. the vendors mortgaged the said parcel of land together with other properties of the petitioners to the Philippine National Bank. Montelibano. T-5979. 29 January 1957: the mortgagee executed a deed of release of real estate mortgage on the parcel of land in question 5. Montelibano. Psd-12392. 6. If judgment is rendered against the plaintiffs in the action. the notice of lis pendens noted on the certificate of title to the lots loses its efficacy or is ipso facto cancelled. The sale made of the two lots by the registered owners to Corazon J. . vs. 6 May 1957: same petitioners filed a motion in the same court and cadastral case alleging that Lot No. If judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in the action brought against the registered owners. 29 of June 1936: the vendee paid in full the agreed price of the parcel of land and on the same date the vendors executed the deed of sale in his favor. G. GRANTED. registered also in the names of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro M. as amended. Inc. share and share alike. LRC (GLRO) Rec. covered by TCT No. Hence this appeal interposed by the oppositors. was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds on 9 May 1957 (entry No. respectively. T-5979. of the Rule of Court. L-13389-90 September 30. such notice cannot be cancelled upon motion of the vendors or vendees predicated upon the fact that the vendees had acquired the lots prior to the noting of the notice of lis pendens. 4. GR 13389 1. 8. oppositorsappellants. Nos. 77 of the Silay Cadastre. Lacson of Silay.G. On 11 November 1957 the Court denied their motion. such sales do not affect third parties. covered by TCT No. after the notice of lis pendens had been noted on back of the title to the property on 12 March 1957. L-13390 1. They prayed that the Register of Deeds of the province of Occidental Negros be directed to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the back of TCT No. No. Occidental Negros. and section 24. 1960 CAPITOL SUBDIVISION. T-5979. 3. On 3 June 1957 the petitioners filed an objection thereto. Rule 7. 7. On 22 May 1957 the oppositors Alfredo L. 3. 2. INC. 2. who caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated in the title to all the realities of the defendant in the province of Occidental of Negros. registered in the names of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro M. 21. was sold to Marcelino Lalantakan of Silay. was sold to Corazon J. movants-appellees. Bacolod Branch. insofar as it affects Lot No. and Montelibano Subdivisions filed a motion in the CFI of Occidental Negros alleging that Lot No. the unrecorded right acquired by the vendees in the lots sold to them is subject or subordinate to the right of the plaintiffs in whose favor judgment is rendered." Such being the law any acquired right in a registered land is effective as between and binding upon the parties and their privies but not as to third parties. 496. T-5986.R. executed by the vendors on 24 September 1954.R. in Cadastral Case No. Lacson and Marcelino Lalantakan. No. 48590). a part of Lot No. with costs against the petitioners and appellees. . including that sold to Corazon J.

THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY. The copy of the motion of said respondent to lift partially the Order of General Default and the copy of the order of the respondent court granting said motion were not served upon petitioners. when the counsel for respondent Tamayo did not present any evidence of his own but merely joined Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. petitioners. REYES. Branch III. but where the rights and liabilities of those who did not appeal and those of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable. SALVADOR C. be useful to explain further why the judgment. in the presentation of its evidence. As to the claim of respondent Paranaque and Development Corporation that Honofre Andrada. peaceful and adverse possession over the land under concept of ownership since time immemorial of their aforementioned predecessors-in-interest. et al. Maria Padilla and before her. Alipio Alinsunurin (now succeeded by Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation) and Roman Tamayo based their claim of title as heirs of the deceased Maria Padilla. who obtained same from the Spanish government under possessory information title granted on February 5. Tamayo and Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. vs. Consequently. (b) the respondents Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation and Roman C. vs. there being no showing that it had adversely affected any substantial right of said respondent. upon their discovery of the existence of Roman C. 0-3151 under Entry No. this Court issued a restraining order enjoining (a) the respondent judge from issuing a writ of possession in LRC No. respondents. PARANAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. ROMAN C . 8. Tamayo's alleged title to 1/3 pro indiviso of the land. alleged that he and the afore-mentioned appellant Alinsunurin and his wife. by themselves or through their predecessorsin interest. 12. 1. Melecio Padilla. now substituted by PARAÑAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G. 1967. 6. 1967. to said respondent. applicant-appellee. 1967 in the memorandum of encumbrances on Original Certificate of Title No. petitioners' failure to serve respondent Tamayo a copy of the notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of judgment cannot considered enough ground to dismiss the appeal with respect to said respondent.R. L-27594 February 27. and the alleged continuous. it should be noted that such claim is not asserted by the party directly involved. HON. respondent Tamayo did not assert a claim adverse to that of the appellant Alinsunurin. It must be remembered that the appeal of the petitioners is from the entire judgment in LRC N-675 and not merely from separate and distinct portions thereof. of the court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. her late father Melecio Padilla. insofar as respondent Tamayo is concerned. Petitioners. the reason being that the filing of a record on appeal is more expressive of the intention to appeal than the filing of notice to do so. the decree was issued arbitrarily and the Torrens Certificate of Title based thereon a nullity. It is not disputed that the evidence in support of the claim of title of respondent Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation is the same as that and inseparable from that of respondent Roman C Tamayo. 1976 THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. successor of Alinsunurin. On June 5.. L-28144 February 27. immediately furnished a copy of their second motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. a reversal of a judgment is binding only on the parties in the suit but does not control the interest of the parties who did not join or were not made parties to the appeal. oppositors-appellants. and therefore. a reversal of the judgment as to one would operate as a reversal as to all. Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation's alleged ownership of 2/3 of the property pro indiviso is concerned would necessarily result in the reversal of the judgment with regard to respondent Roman C. "have all been in actual. For the. in his answer in LRC N-675. namely. and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. were denied their day in court. petitioners filed with the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. No. continuous. it may be recalled that the notice of lis pendens was entered on the Day Book (Primary Entry Book) of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija on April 12. For whether or not an appeal by one or several parties in the case will affect the liability of those who did not appeal must depend upon the facts of each particular case. N-25545. in its Second Motion for Reconsideration would have been easily discernible from a careful reading of the judgment of this Court. as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. Ordinarily. No. 1976 ALIPIO ALINSUNURIN. all their agents or representatives. Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. on the informacion posesoria of Maria's father. together with respondent Roman C. "in favor of appellant Alipio Alinsunurin. The infirmity of the grounds asserted by respondent-appellee. but on the contrary. We have held that filing of the record on appeal on time necessarily implies the filing of a notice on appeal and is equivalent thereto. 12032/0-3151. Accordingly. guidance of the members of the bar and the information of the parties.R. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA. public and peaceful possession as coowners of the land subject herein since time immemorial. no substantial right of respondent Tamayo appears to have impaired by the non-service of the notice of appeal to said party. Besides. as follows: . 13. Tamayo's pleading in the record's of LRC N-675 on January 3.. There is no question that the record on appeal and the amended record on appeal were filed within the period granted by the court. 4. it is inconceivable how the latter respondent's claim of title could stand by itself. N-675. 7. 3. Thus. LRC Rec. with the first two to have 2/3 interest and the last 1/3 interest". however. 9. it may. has not become final during the pendency of the appeal. as well as the copies of the original and amended record on appeal. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. 5. It must be noted that respondent Tamayo's formal entry as . or to consider the judgment final as to said party. 1895 . or in the alternative. 2. Tamayo. and if such evidence of the former is considered untenable. N-675. a notice of lis pendens which is duly entered and annotated on June 23." and prayed that the title be registered in favor of the testate estate of Maria Padilla". from taking possession and/or exercising acts of ownership. Moreover. and (c) restraining the Register of Deeds from accepting for registration documents referring to the subject land until petitioners shall have filed a notice of lis pendens as to the title certificates of Roman C. however. 1967. Tamayo. 10."oppositor"" in LRC N-675 was apparently done without the knowledge of petitioners. 11. the reversal of the judgment insofar V. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. TAMAYO.G. No. This communality of interest was further shown during the hearing. occupancy or possession over the property in question subject matter of LRC No. In any case.

et al. be annotated on the back of the corresponding original certificate of title. . but this is an official duty of the Register of Deeds." 4 Being transferees pendente lite. of course. 4696 on September 23. said parties are bound by the judgment against the transferor. It is not necessary that the notice of lis pendens be annotated on the back of the corresponding original certificate of title. the Second Motion for Reconsideration is denied." was made subsequent to and entry. It is well-settled that in "in involuntary registration such as an attachment. manifest from the foregoing that the order of .Judge Florencio Aquino in Civil Case No. 1968 for the issuance of "clean transfer certificate of title to Honofre Andrada. The notice should. which may be presumed to have been regularly performed. ACCORDINGLY. levy on execution and lis pendens entry thereof on the Day Book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim.It is. therefore.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful